Re: objects are material?

From: david_eddy_spicer@harvard.edu
Date: Sun Oct 27 2002 - 11:53:15 PST


An exemplary student, indeed... able to raise a provocative question that
cuts to the quick without having read the article!

I'm still struggling with the way Gordon elaborates his distinction between
"material tools and semiotic signs". I think he uses the contrast as a bit
of a straw man up front so he can get to where he really wants to go, which
is to explore how discourse functions as a mediating artifact, particularly
in classroom learning & teaching. His claim is that in this kind of a
setting "it is the dialogue itself that constitutes the primary action,
with material action (other than the discourse) playing an ancillary role"
(p. 61), so we need to focus in on it in the special ways that he
elaborates.

I take the thrust of his point to be that discourse in this role has not
been closely examined. This reminded me of a point made by Ruqaiya Hasan in
a conference presentation that's on the web (see below for more). She says,
"...semiotic mediation in the Vygotskian literature appears to always act
felicitously." (1)

As for Yrjo's stand on the bear trap of tool/sign, he broaches this at the
beginning of Perspectives on Activity Theory, in laying out what he
considered to be the key themes of debate around current interpretations of
AT, one of which is "Instrumental tool-mediated production versus
expressive sign-mediated communication":
"A careful reading of Leont'ev's work reveals that both mediation by signs
and subject-subject relations do play an important role in his theory.
Proponents of the cultural-historical school repeatedly point out that
communication is an inherent aspect of all object-related activities.
Leont'ev's (cite) account of the emergence of speech and language emphasize
the original unity of labor actions and social intercourse." Perspectives
on activity theory, p. 24.

David

(1) Excerpt from Hasan: "This is where the concrete and abstract tools
differ in a crucial way: the participation of a conscious other, which is a
condition of mediation by the abstract tool, alters the nature of the
process. We can still maintain that the mediator has the initiative and
active power to impart the semiotic/semantic energy, but here the
user/mediator has far less control on what happens to this mediated energy:
the mediator may impart semiotic energy, but the mediatee may or may not
respond to its force, or respond to it in a way not intended by the user.
At the heart of semiotic mediation there is this element of uncertainty.
Notably, this is not a fact that to my knowledge has ever been brought to
attention in the Vygotskian literature: semiotic mediation in the
Vygotskian literature appears to always act felicitously."
http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/pgc/sochasan.html
retrieved on 02-10-25
SEMIOTIC MEDIATION, LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY: THREE EXOTRIPIC THEORIES -
VYGOTSKY, HALLIDAY AND BERNSTEIN
Ruqaiya Hasan
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

                                                                                                                                       
                      mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd
                      .edu To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
                                               cc:
                      10/26/02 10:30 Subject: objects are material?
                      PM
                      Please respond
                      to xmca
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       

Hi All-- When I try to get to Gordon's paper online, I cannot find it. The
route to access is a myster to me.

So is the following statement in Gordon's abstract:

 Activity theory as formulated by Leont'ev and expanded by Engestrvm has
tended to emphasize activity systems in which the objects to which
subjects' actions are directed are material in form.

First of all, I do not understand the material/(ideal?) division in Yrjo's
work. I thought he followed Ilyenkov in arguing the
interpenetration/perhaps
fusion of ideal and material. Second, Yrjo's own empirical work emphasizes
motives/activities as "beyond the horizon" and very often as new systems of
coordination where dialogue and polylog are central.

So, with the advantage of being about to flee to Gordon's natal country
where
the sun is promised not to shine for the duration of my trip, I would like
to ask a couple of questions.

1) Where in Engestrom's writing is the material/ideal split so clear?
2) Where in anyone's experinece is there discourse sans materiality?
3) How the hell does one get to the article through xmca!

(signed)
About to head over the horizon perpetual student
mc



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PST